Context matters
Context is everything. When you’re swimming in the ocean and see a fin sticking out of the water, your brain concludes: "It's a shark, get out of the water!" But if you're in a pool, you think: "It's a kid with a swim toy that looks like a shark fin." In both situations, the context leads you to reach two very different conclusions and behavioral responses.
How people behave in any given situation is a function of both who they are as individuals (e.g., their personality, skills, past experiences) and the context in which the behavior takes place (e.g., the situation itself). In other words, context matters, and it is difficult to interpret an individual’s behavior without an understanding of the context they faced.
When it comes to using assessments during the hiring process, organizations have a vested interest in making certain that these assessments reflect the organization and job – the context. Doing so helps jumpstart onboarding by ensuring that candidates' assumptions about the organization, the job, and their suitability for both – that they invariably make during the recruiting process – are rooted in reality.
But assessments modeled after the organization and job are superior for another reason: They are generally stronger than generic assessments that cut across job type, level, organization, industry, etc.
- More predictive. First and foremost, the closer the alignment between the assessment and the specific context in which the individual will ultimately perform (i.e., the job at the organization), the better the assessment will do in predicting future job performance. In fact, research demonstrates that highly contextualized assessments have incremental predictive validity beyond situational judgment and job knowledge assessments. This means that even after measuring candidates' job-relevant knowledge and how they would handle particular situations, highly contextualized assessments still reveal candidates' ability to perform the job that we don’t otherwise know from these other tools.
Why is this true? Because the best predictor of future behavior is past performance. For many years, this adage has been dubbed "the Golden Rule of selection." Think about it: What's the best way to predict whether an individual will be a good salesperson at your organization in the future? Answer: Observe them in the job of salesperson at your organization. The only problem in the pre-employment context, however, is that you cannot observe a candidate perform a job they do not have… Or can you?
Assessments designed to reflect the realities of an organization and job often take the form of a simulation – sometimes completely automated; other times involving role plays conducted by trained assessors. In essence, these assessments let candidates "try the job on for size" – explore the situations and challenges faced, engage in dealing with the situations, etc. Such work samples provide the opportunity to, in essence, perform a job that candidates do not yet have, thus enabling conclusions about how they would perform the job if hired.
- Less adverse impact. Not only are highly contextualized assessments, such as simulations, highly predictive of future job success, but they also have lower risk of adverse impact. In fact, a seminal meta-analytic research study – looking across many years of other research studies – found that simulations comprising role-plays or presentations have about 50 percent less risk of adverse impact (i.e., sub-group differences) compared to other assessment tools. This decreased risk of adverse impact translates into a more diverse group of candidates deemed qualified for the job, ultimately leading to a more diverse workforce.
- Higher face validity. Finally, because highly contextualized assessments look like the job, candidates see the relevance of these assessments for the job to which they've applied. Candidates understand why you are asking them to perform some task or answer particular questions because the assessments make sense in their minds given what they know about the job. This is known as face validity, which highly benefits the organization. This underlying concept can decrease the risk of candidates challenging the results of an assessment, improve perceptions and impressions of the employing organization, and increase job offers acceptance rates.
All three areas of highly contextualized assessments are paramount on their own, and together highlight the importance of tailoring pre-employment assessments to the organization and job. They serve the dual purpose of teaching candidates about the job, while also assessing their capabilities and alignment with the organization's needs.
The employment decision is important for both the candidate and the employer, and it benefits both parties to ensure that candidates are assessed in an accurate and authentic manner to make the best, most informed decisions possible.
Related content
In a world where transformation often feels complex and distant, real progress is often sparked at the community level, through leaders who create change from within.
In Senegal, a partnership between BTS Spark and Tostan, a nonprofit dedicated to community-led development across Africa, is bringing this idea to life. It’s a reminder that sustainable leadership isn’t built by imposing new systems. It grows when people are equipped to lead themselves.
A ground-up approach to lasting change
Since 1991, Tostan—whose name means "breakthrough" in Wolof—has partnered with rural African communities to advance human rights, health, literacy, and economic development. Its Community Empowerment Program (CEP) weaves together practical knowledge and human rights education, enabling communities to define and pursue their own visions of progress.
Across eight countries and more than five million lives, Tostan’s approach has led to deep-rooted changes, including the voluntary abandonment of harmful traditional practices. Not by directive, but by choice.
It’s an approach that shows leadership capacity isn’t something to be delivered from outside. It’s something to be nurtured from within.
Meeting communities where they are
In 2024, BTS Spark deepened its collaboration with Tostan through an in-person leadership workshop, led by a BTS Spark consultant, following a year of virtual engagement.
The visit coincided with a leadership transition at the executive level—a pivotal moment requiring clarity, continuity, and resilience. Through targeted coaching and workshops, BTS Spark worked alongside Tostan’s leaders to support the transition and strengthen leadership capacity at every level of the organization.
The focus wasn’t on delivering a model. It was on listening, amplifying existing strengths, and equipping leaders to navigate complexity with confidence.
Practical tools for complex challenges
As part of the ongoing collaboration, BTS Spark also provided custom-designed micro-simulations focused on sectors vital to community sustainability: climate resilience, microfinance, and agriculture.
These micro-sims offer leaders a chance to engage with real-world decision-making challenges in a safe, practical environment—an approach that mirrors how leadership development increasingly happens: not through theory alone, but through repeated, real-world application.
It’s a reminder that growth is rarely linear. It’s built through practice, reflection, and adaptation over time.
Building leadership that endures
The work between BTS Spark and Tostan reflects a broader truth:
Leadership isn’t confined to titles, industries, or regions. It emerges where people are given the tools, trust, and space to act.
Sustainable change, whether in communities or organizations, happens when leadership capacity is strengthened closest to where challenges are lived every day.
The partnership also highlights the power of investing in local capability: focusing on what’s already working, building resilience from within, and preparing leaders not just to meet today’s challenges, but to shape tomorrow’s opportunities.
Moving forward: Scaling with purpose
The work in Senegal is continuing to evolve. BTS Spark and Tostan are exploring ways to extend leadership development to more communities, deepen their impact, and continue supporting transformation through shared expertise and partnership.
It’s a model rooted in respect, collaboration, and the belief that leadership is most powerful when it reflects the realities and aspirations of the people closest to the work.
A talent leader’s guide to critical role planning
To thrive amid massive changes from economic upheavals to AI transformation, today’s organizations must be able to adapt, recover, and grow stronger in the face of adversity – they must build resilience.
What truly makes an organization resilient? It’s not just strategic plans or operational efficiency; fundamentally, it’s about people. Resilient organizations are those that recognize the critical roles within their teams, nurture talent, and create a culture where adaptability and innovation are the norms.
At the recent Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) Annual Conference in Chicago, BTSers Lynn Collins, Maia Whelan, and their esteemed panelists led a compelling discussion: Critical role strategy for organizational resilience. The session focused on how identifying and nurturing critical roles can help organizations build resilience in today’s rapidly evolving business landscape. This blog explores actionable strategies from the panel discussion for talent leaders looking to redefine critical role planning and build organizational resilience.
What is a critical role?
A critical role isn’t confined to the executive level. Effective leadership and organizational success depend significantly on roles scattered throughout your organization.
Middle managers, for example, serve as essential bridges between strategy and operational execution: they ensure that the organization’s broader objectives are translated into actionable tasks that teams can understand and implement. Project leads are also at the helm of initiatives that can redefine the business landscape for a company. They deploy new technologies, spearhead market expansions, manage diverse teams, and maintain project coherence to drive transformation.
The challenge with critical role planning, therefore, lies in the fluid nature of what constitutes a ‘critical role’. Agility in reevaluating and recalibrating these roles allows organizations to respond dynamically to new challenges and opportunities. In the pharmaceutical industry, as companies increasingly shift their focus towards biologics, the roles responsible for managing these technologies become increasingly important. Similarly, in the financial sector, roles that steer digital transformations are pivotal.
Identifying and fortifying these critical roles is paramount. This involves not only recognizing the key positions, but nurturing the talent within through a thoughtfully crafted, future-focused talent development strategy.
Nurturing talent is the key for organizational resilience
Investing in talent goes beyond filling positions; it’s about preparing your organization to face future challenges while bolstering current capabilities. This investment significantly impacts turnover, retention, and promotion rates, contributing positively to both the individuals involved and the organizational culture at large.
At BTS, we see common themes with our clients across industries:
- Talent strategy is essential for safeguarding organizational resilience. This includes adopting a digital mindset, not just externally by hiring new talents, but also internally upskilling existing employees to meet new challenges.
- Enhancing emotional intelligence is equally vital in enabling the workforce to manage stress and adapt to changes effectively.
- Strengthening business acumen across all levels of the organization is also crucial for fostering resilience. Employees are better equipped to make informed decisions that align with strategic goals when they develop a keen understanding of business operations and market dynamics.
This comprehensive approach—combining technological proficiency, emotional intelligence, and business insight—ensures that teams are not only competent but also agile and strategic in the face of ongoing challenges.
6 ways talent leaders should think differently about critical roles
Here’s what you can do to think outside the box to enhance both individual and organizational performance through critical role strategy:
- Broaden the definition of critical roles: Talent leaders should evaluate roles based on their actual impact on the organization, rather than focusing on organizational hierarchy.
- Foster role flexibility: Encourage a culture of adaptability by regularly reassessing and recalibrating critical roles. This ensures roles can be defined to align with evolving strategic needs and current business priorities, keeping the organization agile and responsive to change.
- Use data-driven role analysis: Use data to track the effectiveness of critical roles in real-time and adjust role criteria based on evidential data rather than intuition.
- Create a proactive talent acquisition strategy: Talent leaders should engage in continuous talent scouting, not just when a role becomes vacant. This involves understanding the talent landscape and building relationships with potential candidates before the need arises.
- Decentralize talent decisions: Empower local managers and teams to make critical talent decisions to ensure that those who are closest to the work have a say in who fills pivotal roles. This approach can lead to more informed and effective placement decisions. To maintain rigor and ensure consistency, establish clear guidelines and accountability frameworks. This helps maintain high standards across all decisions and strategically aligns talent management with broader organizational goals.
- Enhance diversity in critical roles: Actively work to increase diversity within critical roles. This involves not only recruiting a diverse workforce, but also creating pathways for diverse talent to advance into these roles. Diverse perspectives can lead to more innovative solutions and resilience against market disruptions. Comprehensive mentorship initiatives, equitable advancement opportunities, and ongoing diversity trainings ensure that all talented individuals have the chance to significantly contribute to the organization.
These strategies are designed to help talent leaders transform their organizations into agile entities capable of anticipating and responding to rapid changes. This fosters a culture that not only values but thrives on adaptability, proactive talent development, and strategic foresight.
Invest in your people
As a talent leader, your influence is pivotal in steering your organization towards greater resilience. By redefining and enriching critical roles and the talent that fills them, you’re not just preparing your organization to face future challenges but to excel amidst them.
This requires a commitment to pushing the boundaries of traditional talent management by:
- Taking innovative approaches to career development
- Using predictive analytics to better understand and deploy talent in critical roles
- Embedding continuous growth and feedback into your culture
Such efforts ensure that critical roles are not only filled with competent individuals but are also continuously evolving to meet the demands of a dynamic business environment. By doing so, you transform resilience into a powerful competitive advantage, ensuring your organization remains agile, forward-thinking, and robust.
A large financial services company promoted a key leader into the position of CEO. Two of their peers were also vying for the top job. Almost immediately, the other two executives left the company. This created an unexpected leadership vacuum that cascaded within their respective departments, where no one on either team was able to step up into the suddenly vacant leadership spots. The lack of “ready now” successors required the company to look outside to replace those executive leadership roles, significantly disrupting their critical strategic transformation effort and creating additional chaos at the top of the company at a time when they could ill afford to slow momentum.
Similarly, a global manufacturing company promoted a key leader into the CEO role who lacked sales and marketing experience – an area where his predecessor had deep expertise. This expertise was a critical driver in the company’s success to date, and the gap at the top was stalling revenue growth and impeding the new CEO’s ability to deliver on the Board’s expectations. In order to fill the CEO’s knowledge gap, the company reorganized the head of sales and marketing role so that it was led by two executives instead of one. This unanticipated restructuring created confusion across the C-Suite and the rest of the sales and marketing organization regarding roles and responsibilities, which compounded their challenges in driving growth. The unexpected increased salary costs accompanying the additional executive role further impacted the bottom line, as well.
What these two examples illustrate is the Domino Effect. The Domino Effect occurs when a star performer is promoted, and there is no “ready now” successor to fill the role they are vacating. With so much attention placed on getting a new CEO into the role, the Domino Effect can cascade down through the organization and is an often hidden and unanticipated outcome that can hinder even the most capable chief executive from successfully taking the reins.
Assessing the impact of the Domino Effect
Conventional wisdom and the literature suggest that CEOs sourced internally outperform CEOs that are sourced externally. For example, in Harvard Business Review’s “Best CEOs of the World” top 100 list, 84% came from internal promotions1. The majority of leaders who ascend to the CEO role are COOs, CFOs, divisional CEOs, and some are “leapfrog” leaders identified below the C-Suite2. A question that has not been addressed is: what happens to the performance of the company when there are no internal candidates for the new CEO’s previous role? In other words, what is the impact of the Domino Effect on company performance?
To answer this question, we compared the S&P 500 twenty best performing companies3 with the twenty worst performing companies4 based upon percentage change in stock price.
What happened at the Best Performing companies?
Within the top 20 best performing companies, 75% of the CEOs were internal with 5 of the CEOs being founders of the company and 10 being promoted into the role. For their former positions, from which they were promoted, four were filled by internal candidates, and two were replaced with external candidates. Examining the leadership teams on the company’s websites, it appears that in three incidences, the role that the CEO vacated no longer exists. In one case the role was restructured and split into two different positions.
What happened at the Worst Performing companies?
70% of the CEOs at the worst performing companies came through promotions or being founder led (12 and 2 respectively), which is nearly identical to the best performing companies. All things being equal, one would expect a similar trend regarding the number of internal vs. external replacements for the CEOs’ previous roles from which they were promoted. However, we found that there were differences. Only three of the backfilled positions were placed by internal candidates and four were placed by external hires. In three of the companies, the position no longer exists, and two of the companies restructured the position.
Understanding the impact: disruption and worsening performance
The research shows little difference between the best and worst performing companies in relation to internal promotions and external hires for the CEO position. However, we do see more organizational disruptions in the replacement of the previous roles held by the CEO. A disruption is defined here as either the company was required to hire from the outside, restructure the role, or eliminate the role altogether. All of these create added turmoil and challenge for the new CEO as they try to move quickly to onboard and start delivering impact.
We found that disruptions were present in 60% of the top-performing companies, compared to 75% of the poorest performing companies. While more research is needed to uncover the nuances, our research suggests that companies with a stronger bench for newly promoted CEOs’ previous positions have less organizational disruption and outperform those who do not have a strong bench.
Tackling the Domino Effect before it falls
While CEO succession garners the greatest amount of the spotlight in the press, among board members, and in public sentiment of the health of a company, our research underscores the need for CEOs, CHROs, and Boards to focus on the Domino Effect as part of their C-Suite succession process. That is, creating a bench of potential successors targeted specifically for the CEO’s previous role, and the roles deeper within the organization that could replace those who are being elevated in the company at the time of the new CEO transition.
Consider these best practices to get ahead of the Domino Effect:
- Build the backfill into the identification process. When identifying potential candidates for the CEO, simultaneously consider who may replace that candidate for their current role.
- Focus on the role rather than the person. You may not be able to replace the next CEO’s position with one individual, but you may be able to replicate their skills with people who can excel in the role with complimentary skills.
- Expand the purview of success profiles. Create success profiles for the CEO and those roles that are likely feeder pools for CEO. Ensure that the success profiles are future focused rather than focused on what is important today. Business realities change over time. What makes someone successful today may be different than what is required in the next 3 to 5 years.
- Leverage the power of data for determining future success. As you look at your bench, use structured assessment processes to assess individuals against the success profile, reduce the risk of biases towards individuals, and determine their readiness to address the future business challenges that the organization will face.
- Comprehensively build the right bench. Look broad and deep within the organization when identifying potential successors. You may find those “leapfrog” leaders who would otherwise be overlooked.
- Continually refresh your succession slate. Given the cascading impacts of the Domino Effect, it is more important than ever to ensure your slate is up to date with viable candidates for higher level positions. Consider doing so on at least an annual basis.
- Ensure that succession is seen as a strategic imperative across the leadership of the organization rather than a single event of placing a new CEO. The CEO and the CHRO should own the succession process, the Board should be involved, and the focus should stay equally on the CEO role and the successor leadership roles throughout the organization.
Finding, placing, and ramping up a new CEO is a momentous decision with big outcomes at play – for the CEO’s own success and the viability of the organization. If you embrace the opportunity to turn the Domino Effect into a strategic gameplan, you will be positioned both for accelerated success and impact.
References
1 Harrell, E. Succession Planning: What the Research Says. Harvard Business Review December 2016
2 Harvard Business Review Staff. November 2009. The Best Performing CEOs in the World. Harvard Business Review 41-57.
3 https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/10/10/invest-sp-500-stocks-market-portfolio/
4 https://finance.yahoo.com/news/20-worst-performing-p-500-200036146.html
Related content
Organizations have long wanted to scale coaching, but have been limited by cost and capacity. With AI, that's beginning to change as new platforms make coaching more accessible, flexible, and available on demand, extending support beyond a select group of leaders to entire populations.
For talent leaders, this shift creates both opportunity and complexity. With greater reach comes a new set of trade-offs: how to balance access with depth, flexibility with accountability, and efficiency with meaningful development.
The limits of unlimited (coaching).
Unlimited coaching sounds like the obvious answer. Remove the barriers, give everyone access, let people engage on their own terms. What's not to like?
In practice, quite a bit.
When coaching has no defined structure or cadence, engagement tends to become episodic - people show up when something feels urgent and step back when it doesn't. The coaching relationship never quite deepens. Conversations cover ground but don't build on it. And the development that was supposed to happen keeps getting pushed to the next session, and the next.
Three patterns emerge:
- Sporadic engagement over sustained development. Without a rhythm to anchor the work, coaching becomes reactive. Clients bring whatever is most pressing that week rather than working toward something larger. Progress happens in bursts, if at all.
- Insights that don't compound. Great coaching reveals patterns over time - things a client can't see in one session but can't unsee after several. Without continuity, and without a consistent coaching relationship to hold the thread, each conversation starts close to zero.
- Outcomes that are hard to measure. No milestones. No defined endpoint. No clear way for the organization, or the client, to know whether it's working. Activity fills the gap where impact should be.
The result is a model that's easy to scale and hard to defend. Which is exactly the problem talent leaders are navigating right now.
The relationship is the lever.
Decades of research into what makes coaching work keeps arriving at the same answer: it's the relationship. Not the platform, not the methodology. The relationship.
When a coach and client build trust over time, developing shared language, and returning to the same themes with increasing depth, something shifts. Conversations get more honest. Insights stick. The client starts doing the work between sessions, not just during them. That's when coaching becomes genuinely transformative, and it can't be rushed or replicated in a one-off session.
The ICF and EMCC are clear on this: continuity is what dives outcomes. The coaching engagements that produce lasting change are the ones where each session builds on the last, not the ones that simply offer more access.
Three principles make that possible: Consistency, Continuity, and Completion.
1. Consistency
The foundation everything else is built on.
The temptation when designing a coaching program is to treat flexibility as a feature - let people book when they want, swap coaches freely, engage on their own schedule. But frequent coach changes reset the clock. Every new coach has to earn trust, learn context, and find their footing with the client. That's time spent getting started, not getting somewhere.
A stable coaching relationship works differently:
- The coach starts to see around corners, uncovering patterns the client can't see on their own
- The client stops performing and starts being honest
- The relationship itself becomes a source of accountability, not just the sessions
Consistency doesn't constrain the work. It's what makes the deeper work possible.
2. Continuity
What turns a series of sessions into genuine development.
Without continuity, coaching tends to be additive at best- each session offers something useful, but nothing compounds. With it, the work builds on itself in ways that can't happen in isolated conversations.
What continuity makes possible:
- A limiting belief surfaced in session three becomes a thread that runs through the rest of the engagement
- A behavioral pattern the client couldn't see at the start becomes impossible to ignore by the end
- Space opens up for the harder work - the kind that requires sitting with discomfort across multiple sessions, not resolving it quickly and moving on
That slower, deeper work is where lasting change actually happens. It doesn't come from more sessions. It comes from the right sessions, in the right order, with the same person.
3. Completion
The most underrated principle of the three.
In a world of unlimited access, there's no finish line, and without one, it's surprisingly hard to know what you're working toward, or whether you've gotten there. A defined endpoint changes the entire shape of an engagement.
A clear endpoint creates urgency and focuses every session on what matters most.
- Shifts the question from "what should we talk about this week?" to "what do we need to accomplish before we're done?"
- Gives both coach and client a body of work to look back on, not just a log of conversations
For talent leaders, this is also what makes coaching legible as an investment. Sessions logged is an activity metric. A cohort of leaders who completed a structured engagement and can articulate what changed, that's a result.
Don't just scale it, design it (here’s how)
The opportunity in front of talent leaders right now is significant. The organizations that will get the most from this moment are the ones that treat coaching design as seriously as coaching delivery.
Practical design decisions:
- Define the arc before you launch: set the number of sessions, the cadence, and the goals upfront, not after people have already started booking
- Protect the coaching relationship: Make coach switching the exception, not the default, and design your program to discourage unnecessary re-matches
- Build in milestones: create structured check-ins at the midpoint and end of each engagement so progress is visible to both the coach and the organization
- Separate on-demand support from developmental coaching: Use AI-enabled tools for in-the-moment guidance, and reserve structured engagements for the deeper work
- Measure completion, not just activation: Track how many people finish an engagement, not just how many start one
Questions to pressure-test your design:
- Does every participant know what they're working toward before their first session?
- Can your coaches see enough context about a client's journey to pick up where they left off?
- Would you be able to show, at the end of a cohort, what changed, and for whom?
Access opened the door. Intention is what makes it worth walking through.
Three decisions that changed everything.
Two years ago, we made three deliberate decisions about how BTS would move with Applied AI.
We would become our own Customer Zero.
While others were building strategies, defining governance, and waiting for clarity, we made a different call: we decided not to wait. Not because the stakes were low, but because they were high. And because in a space evolving this quickly, clarity wouldn’t come from planning. It would come from movement.
So instead of starting with a roadmap, we started with three principles:
- No top-down mandate. The people closest to the work figure it out.
- IT must evolve from gatekeeper to enabler - leading AI trials and fast experimentation.
- Don’t wait for certainty.
We set the organization in motion, and once we did, things started to move quickly.
What if we started this company today?
Waiting for certainty is itself a choice, and it’s costing companies more than they realize.
We started where we knew the work best: our simulations. No perfect plan, just teams moving, trying, and iterating.
Simulations are core to who we are at BTS. Companies that simulate don’t just make better decisions; they execute faster and build more engaged cultures.
The team asked a simple question:
"What if we were to start our company today?”
That question started the flywheel.
They asked IT for a few licenses and started building - vibe-coding, writing agents, and testing tools - moving at a pace that would make any VC-backed start-up smile.
The messy middle.
At first, the team was underwhelmed.
The early reports were blunt:
“Not good with math.”
“Poor graph capabilities.”
The team wasn't discouraged. They kept tinkering - jumping between tools, staying on top of new releases, experimenting constantly.
This was a small team, across 24 countries, building off each other’s ideas. Laughing at crazy creations. Breaking things. Iterating in a sandbox alongside real clientwork.
Each cycle produced something:
- A sharper scenario
- A faster build
- A more powerful simulation
The flywheel was turning, and it was generating something real.
When the diamond appeared.
Then something shifted.
The team moved into client trials across five countries. They figured out ISO compliance and built the architecture to handle the complexity, the “spaghetti.”
And what emerged wasn’t incremental:
- What used to take weeks started happening in days.
- Limited creativity started to feel like unlimited innovation.
- Clients became self-serving.
- Agentic simulations were built directly into client systems for real-time updates and preparation.
This was our first AI diamond - a high-impact outcome created by many cycles of experimentation compounding into real value.
It only appeared because we kept the flywheel turning, each cycle increasing the odds that something would break through.
95% adoption in eight weeks.
Then it was time to take the AI diamond global.
BTS is decentralized and highly entrepreneurial. We operate across 24 countries and 38 offices, where local teams have real autonomy.
And historically? That’s meant a low appetite for adopting something built somewhere else and pushed from the center.
So we expected resistance.
Instead, something surprising happened.
In the first eight weeks, we saw 95% adoption across our global footprint.
It felt completely different from our own digital initiatives, ERP implementations, top-down rollouts of the past.
This moved on its own. Why?
We realized it didn’t start with a framework or a model, it started with a feeling.
The feeling of being at the leading edge of one’s craft and profession.
- Joy
- Excitement
- Pride
As we watched this play out across teams it stopped feeling like isolated wins.
There was a pattern to it. A repeatable, organic, innovation motion.
And the flywheel didn’t stop with simulations.
It spread across finance, sales enablement, legal, operations, and client delivery. Some cycles led to small improvements, and others revealed new diamonds.
Not becausewe planned for them, but because we built the conditions for people to find them.
The question I'd ask any CEO right now: Is your flywheel turning, or are you still waiting for the perfect plan?
In part 2, I’ll share the key success factors behind the breakthrough, and what we’re now seeing across more than 120 global clients.
La maggior parte delle riunioni di vendita non fallisce.
Semplicemente non porta a una decisione.
Ed è lì che si perde valore.
I clienti di oggi sono più informati, più selettivi e hanno meno tempo.
Non hanno bisogno di altre presentazioni di prodotto.
Hanno bisogno di conversazioni che li aiutino a stabilire le priorità, decidere e andare avanti.
Eppure, il 58% delle riunioni di vendita non riesce a creare valore reale.
Non perché i venditori manchino di capacità, ma perché le conversazioni non sono progettate per far avanzare le decisioni.
“I clienti non agiscono su ogni esigenza che riconoscono.
Agiscono quando qualcosa diventa una priorità.”
In questo breve executive brief scoprirai:
- Perché la maggior parte delle conversazioni informa… ma non porta all’azione
- Cosa spinge davvero i clienti a stabilire priorità e muoversi
- Come creare urgenza senza compromettere la fiducia
- Il passaggio dal presentare soluzioni al facilitare decisioni
- Cosa distingue le conversazioni che si bloccano da quelle che accelerano il progresso
Se i tuoi team stanno affrontando trattative bloccate, decisioni ritardate o un pipeline lento, questo brief ti aiuterà a capire il perché e cosa fare in modo diverso.
Scarica l’executive brief e scopri come progettare conversazioni che portano davvero a decisioni.